Tom Lane escribió:
> [ forgot to respond to this part ]
>
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > ... I don't see the problem with DROP.
> > Under the proposed design, it's approximately equivalent to dropping a
> > table that someone else has truncated. You just wait for the
> > necessary lock and then do it.
>
> And do *what*? You can remove the catalog entries, but how are you
> going to make the physical storage of other backends' versions go away?
> (To say nothing of making them flush their local buffers for it.)
Maybe we could add a sinval message to that effect.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
